Skip to main content

tv   Viewpoint With Eliot Spitzer  Current  September 26, 2012 8:00pm-9:00pm PDT

8:00 pm
among likely voters in the bloomberg poll. mitt romney claimed to see something positive in those numbers. he told reporters earlier tonight, and i quote . . . >> eliot: not really, but to mitt these days it seems facts are what they them to be. he still struggles to get past that video where he puts down nearly half of the nation's voters as dead beats. 54% of registered voters have an unfavorable view of comments while 32% viewed them as favorable. and now he addressed the voters directly. >> romney: president obama and i both care about poor and middle class families. the difference is my policies will make things better for
8:01 pm
them. >> eliot: romney even praised his massachusetts health care program, romney told nbc news, and i quote . . . one can only imagine what would have hand if romney had embraced his health care plan at the start of this raisin stead of running away from it. according to the "new york times" cbs news poll of three swing states the president leads his challenger by 12 points. mr. obama is out in front in florida by nine points, and in ohio, president obama is up by ten points. but some republicans seem to have trouble accepting the polls as valid.
8:02 pm
>> i trust our numbers, and that's what we're basing our decisions off of. >> eliot: good luck with that. in ohio romney accepted the endorsement of golf legend jack nicolaus. >> romney: it's great to have senator rob portman. he is playing barack obama in these mock debates we have. i don't like him very much. he keeps beating me up and i keep shaking my head. obama deputy campaign manager stephanie cutter claimed to think the same about romney. >> mitt romney is actually pretty good on his feet in debates. as these things go challengers normally win the first debate just by standing on the stage
8:03 pm
with the president, they could get a lift. >> eliot: romney has had plenty of practice standing on both sides of every issue. here is what he august. >> romney: the president has now raised taxes on the middle class. >> see there is one thing he has not done in the first four years that he said he is going to do in the next four years, which is to raise taxes. >> eliot: the committee offered support for todd akin who committed tuesday to staying in the race until the end? what seems to be an effort to look past akins comments, the commit released a statement that reed in part . . . just over a month ago, claire mccaskill lead akin by two
8:04 pm
points. and last week mccaskill was up by six. for more let's go to "politico"'s chief investigative reportervogel, and josh [ inaudible ]. is this race really almost over? >> yeah things do not look good for mitt romney. even more specifically than the swing states just ohio and florida, double-digit deficit in florida. almost double-digit deficit in ohio. we can probably win -- there is a slight path to victory without winning ohio, there really isn't one i see without winning florida. and though mitt romney is making a play for ohio and is very committed to competing in those two states we're starting to hear rumblings from smart
8:05 pm
republicans who say maybe they would be better offon pulling from ohio and investing in florida. and then through some combination of these other swing states which you would almost have to run the table pull out a victory in the electoral college, but the math is tough. >> eliot: when you are down that much in swing states it is tough to get the tech tonic plates to move. what would you counsel him? >> i don't think it's about picking and choosing on the map. when you look at the senate races they are falling apart even more for republicans, which i think may be a leading indicator for romney. it doesn't make sense to me that ohio florida, and massachusetts are falling apart on the senate
8:06 pm
side and yet romney is doing worse. >> eliot: there's a fascinating column in the "new york times" today, which basically said if the focus had been the past month or so, it would not have been a good month for him. in terms of what is going on in north africa, the job numbers are not good and his convention speech did not wow anybody. but we have not been watching president obama. we have been watching mitt romney and the white house has gotten us to focus almost exclusively on him. is that not the distinction here? >> yeah certainly. that was the goal from the very beginning. it was to make this a referendum
8:07 pm
on president obama. there is still a chance. you are not necessarily playing the math math as much as you are hoping for a shift in focus, and mitt romney has not facilitated that. he has had a number of unforced error recent and from the past recently coming to life like the 47% video, which josh said the day it was released was the day that mitt romney lost the election. i wouldn't go that far except to say that it was yet another unforced error that continued to bring the focus on to romney and not president obama. looking forward to the debate perhaps that's a chance for mitt romney to shift the focus. we're starting to see him try to make the case in a more empathetic way. this video that he cut recently this new ad where it's a straight to camera delivery.
8:08 pm
we're going to need to see more of that, but it's really a tough hill for him to climb because so much of the negative focus has been on him for so many weeks now. >> eliot: i think you are right, josh. and this is the -- the debates are his hail mary maybe he'll get some assist from some bad referees who will call the play the wrong way. what should he do to get the completion in the end zone? >> i think when the debates matter is when somebody makes a really big unforced error like gerald ford insisting there is no soviet domination of poland. the problem is the president is pretty good at this. so i think it will be very hard to draw the president into that, especially because romney's
8:09 pm
focus usually is not an aggressive debating style. >> eliot: he is more counterpuncher. >> right. >> eliot: and the superintendent a very conservative thinker and speaker in those settings. so he will play a cautious game so that's why i have a hard time seeing that -- i would say my goodness on every issue, just say governor romney which position do you believe it? you have said this and this. and that is an easy way to show him as the flipping candidate that he has come across as. ken if you were going to give mitt romney one piece of advise what would it be? >> obviously hit obama hard on the economy. obama did give a little bit of an opening saying he has learned that you can't change washington from the inside.
8:10 pm
and for a candidate that ran on hope and change that's something that mitt romney could seize on. and this is not mitt romney's style, to the extent he is a technical debater, but if you look back to 2008 when obama stumbled against hilary clinton in those series of debates, it was when it got a little more the cuff. he said you are likable enough hilary, that came across as very cool and dismissive, and perhaps that's a chance for mitt romney to make it a personal thing. perhaps a chance to lull obama into an unforced error like that. >> eliot: the debates rarely change the game only when -- as you said josh -- there is an unforced error. let's switch to the senate race. people thought the republicans
8:11 pm
would end up with 51 52 seats. how many senate seatings will the republicans hold when all is said and done. >> i don't think they will pick up a majority. and the simultaneous deterioration -- like tommy a three-term governor in wisconsin. very popular, moderate. as opposed to the todd akin fringe candidate, he is the big interest, so why is he losing his group? >> i have no idea. so it has to be a national phenomenon. but i don't really understand. >> eliot: if you had to pick one senate race, and capture the
8:12 pm
emotions of the nation right now, what would it be? >> florida is an easy one to look at connie mack had a lot of connie behind him. that is now sort of in doubt. wisconsin has become ground zero for so many debates and national politics it's interesting to see how that place out on a local level. tommy thompson represents that the republicans had going for him over the years, and now to see him struggle is destructive. one thing to watch across the board will be at what point some of these big pac groups decide that maybe their money is better sent on senate or house races than on mitt romney and i think their ability to shift their resources could be determinate in the same way that when back in 1996 the republican party
8:13 pm
decided bob dole is a goner, let's invest in keeping majorities in senate. >> eliot: i think that moment has already occurred. they are moving money to the senate races. the wisconsin race that you talked about josh important for another reason if thompson loses, then the post election republican internal debate about what the party should do will have -- the far right will look at tommy thompson and say even he moderating didn't win. if he wins the central lists will say that is the victory. all right. we'll have to continue this. ken vogel, josh borro, thanks for your time tonight. >> thanks a lot, elliot. the wife of (vo) this program is presented by american express.
8:14 pm
welcome to the possibilities of membership. welcome in. american express. we've all had those moments. when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership. nah, he's probably got... [ dennis' voice ] allstate. they can bundle all your policies together. lot of paperwork. actually... [ dennis' voice ] an allstate agent can help do the switching and paperwork for you. well, it probably costs a lot. [ dennis' voice ] allstate can save you up to 30% more when you bundle. well, his dog's stupid. [ dennis' voice ] poodles are one of the world's smartest breeds. ♪ ♪ bundle and save with an allstate
8:15 pm
agent. are you in good hands?
8:16 pm
climate change has gone from theoretical to real and the likely damages are becoming increasingly measurable which brings us to the number of the day, more than 100 million, that's how many people are expected to die by the year 2030 from climate change. in the next two decades the yearly total of those who die will climb to 6 million. who are the victims? most of them live in areas that don't even add to the climate change.
8:17 pm
india will probably see a 20% rise in rainfall over the next few decades. this is just a projection, but it is based on damage we see year after year and now to my point. (vo) jennifer granholm ... >>for every discouraged voter, there are ten angry ones taking action. trickle down does not work. in romney's world, cars get the elevator and the workers get the shaft. that is a whole bunch of bunk. the powerful may steal an election, but they can't steal democracy. if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now.
8:18 pm
>> eliot: this week marks the annual clinton global initiative conference featuring speeches and panels from some of the most prominent panels in the world. one of those panels was titled women in the economy. joining us now is sheri blair who has had a distinguished career in england, and is the developer of your foundation. thank you for being here. >> it's delightful to be here. >> eliot: give us a scope of
8:19 pm
your foundation. >> we try to help people particularly in the middle east africa, and asia expand and grow their businesses so they can help themselves their families, and the wider community. i strongly believe a woman who has economic power and has her own money also has a voice in the community. >> eliot: so this is part of a larger social transformation that you believe will follow if the role of women is fundamentally altered to one of being both equality and economic and financial success? >> actually i don't think this is just about women in the developing world. there is nowhere in the world where women have complete equality with men. and it's a nonsense for any society to neglect 50% of his population. >> eliot: i didn't mean to suggest the issues are not here
8:20 pm
as well but since the focus of your foundation is in areas where perhaps there has been at a social level, a greatest vest age of sub serveients. >> that's true. in the middle east 70% of the students are women. but less than 20% are going into the economy. so women are being educated but they still are not able to put those skills to use for the benefit of their country. >> eliot: because of social prohibitions. >> certainly. we look at it in three ways. we look at our women entrepreneurs, and say what do they need. we say they need capacity
8:21 pm
building so quite a lot of the women maybe have not ever had business training but we also think what they need is confidence. and that's a trend in general of particularly women in areas where they have been told so much what women can't do that we need to build up their confidence to tell them that women can do what they want to do. and the final thing we want them to do is give them access to capital. 40% of the world's working population are our women. obviously 50% of the population is women, yet when you look to access to capital, a key driver of the economy, only 10% of the capital available in the world is going to women. >> eliot: the micro finance evolution has had a direct impact on women in particular. and it has a remarkable transformtive effect to access
8:22 pm
to capital. is that part of the revolution you are waning to participate in. >> we want to focus on the middle. there has been a new movement that has come out of the idea of giving small amounts of women often in organized groups that they share the money among them and they make a huge difference to the lives of their families but it tens to be for very small amounts of money. and if you get a woman who is good at business and starts to grow her business unless she can make the money from the whole of the group, she is not going to be able to do that. >> eliot: i think the payback rate was better than some of the major banks here in new york. i think that has been a
8:23 pm
remarkable success. your focus has been perhaps elsewhere in the world, but there is a raging debate here in the united states and your country as well about the glass ceiling and whether women can have it all. the article saying essentially you can't all at once. maybe over time. where do you come out on this? >> i have a great respect for emery slaughter whom i know. i always say you have got to look at this in the context of a career span which is 40 or 50 years, and i think there are times when you can't have it all in the sense that you can't go full out on your career and full out on bringing up young children. >> eliot: right. >> but that span is such a small part of a lifetime's career. but i do say that women can have it all spaced out over that career, and what we need to do to change the whole dynamic is try to stop making it so women
8:24 pm
have to make once and for all choices, particularly around the time when they want to have children and bring up their families. too often now we allow women to fall out of the job market and we don't give them ways back in. >> eliot: right. >> and we don't acknowledge the skills that it takes to be a mother and bring up children, and we don't value them enough, and we don't give women the choices so that they can say, well now has come the time when i want to go and do something for myself. >> eliot: and i have to say -- i have often seen -- there is a huge reservoir of talented women lawyers -- and i'm most familiar with here in new york where women wanted to take some time off and then wanted to get back in, but were off the career track. there has got to be a way to
8:25 pm
bring them back into the work force. >> it is a terrible waste of talent. girls are doing better than boys at school and better than boys in college and yet within five years into the work force, boys are paid 15% more than girls. and then there is the biological clock. and some women come back and choose to sort of hold themselves back, because they are worried that if they -- unless they do that they are going to come to grief trying to balance work and family. >> eliot: one of the remedies have been quotas and one of the debates going on right now in europe in particular is quotas for board representation. is that one of the steps you think we should pursue or is that too easy and doesn't really
8:26 pm
cut to the real problem? >> first of all i think that board -- we need to do more to have more women on the boards because all of the research shows if you have at least 30% of women on the board you have a diversity of life experiences and opinions on the board, they do better on the bottom line. on the other hand it is not just about the boards. the problem is we don't have enough women at the executive level and the pipeline coming through. >> eliot: i guess the hope is if they are on the boards then it would sink on down through the entire structure of the company. i just have to say you have had four kids and managed to navigate through that and have an amazing career so part of it is having role models. >> exactly. and that's why boards are
8:27 pm
important. sometimes you have to kick start a process. >> eliot: right. >> and that's what this whole debate is about. >> eliot: right. i think you as a role model is one way to do it. thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thank you for having
8:28 pm
8:29 pm
rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis.
8:30 pm
>> eliot: still ahead as the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis drags on could it have been handled in a better way. but first, green bay hires a replacement weather man. when it doesn't fit anybody place else we put it in the
8:31 pm
viewfinder. >> now these replacement refs are getting flak just because their innocent mistakes are determining the outcome of games. >> this is what the regular refs have been waiting for. if i was them whatever i was asking for i would double it. >> this is your replacement weather guy forecast. it looks like it will be bad out there today, people. 200 degrees below is what we're looking at. >> did you see the interview with the quarterback? it's not the interview it is what is going on behind him. >> we practice that all the time -- >> watch this. >> the refs are partying with the seahawks. >> we talked about how the president's appearance on "the view" sparked a little criticism. >> should the president be
8:32 pm
meeting with egyptian president morsi or with joy behar? >> choosing whoopi over world piece? >> world leaders like to be treat as equals. and now all of them know that president obama chose to do "the view" instead of meeting with them. >> is there any discussion amongst world leaders about the president not being available for face-to-face meetings. >> not that i heard. i think everybody is preparing for their speeches. >> so we are in fact perhaps in some respects blowing this out of proportion? >> most likely. >> he decided to sit down with the ladies of "the view." >> whatever his missteps are as president, barack obama, is surging the course because the
8:33 pm
closer we get to the election, the dumber mitt romney gets. >> you can't find any oxygen inside the aircraft because the windows don't open. i don't know why they don't do that. but it's a real problem. so it's very dangerous. the windows don't open i don't know why they don't do that? >> eliot: i have my own take onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
8:34 pm
8:35 pm
>> eliot: taking cheap shots at the replacement refs was easy and fun, but misses the point. it's time to focus on the deeper meaning underlying the nfl lockout initiated by the owners. it is the equivalent for all that is wrong in the economy, extraordinarily wealthy owners
8:36 pm
are squeezing the working guys the locked out refs who not only get weekly abuse from fans but paychecks thahat barely register in comparison to the owners and players. those at the top do better and better while those in the middle see what had been seen as basic aspects of a paycheck a pension and health care disappear at the bargaining table. this could be viewed as a private dispute that should be resolved and which some sound judgment and reason could get across -- pardon the phrase -- the goal line, but there is another dimension to this. a significant piece of the wealth that the nfl owners garner is the result of the enormous tv profits they get. and the anti-trust laws have
8:37 pm
been made to sports leagues, especially the nfl. the nfl has used its political muscle the wealth of its owners, to acquire an edge on the economic playing field via congress. the owners have made more money, eliminated competition, and hens kept us hostage to inferior games official rating for refs filling in for the real guys in pain stripes. so maybe say to the owners go ahead, go ahead to your lockout, but say good-bye to the laws that you bought to give yourself a bit of an edge, and now play by the same rules as the rest of us do in the real world. simply put, nfl owners should have to compete on a virtual playing field. they have shown how the game can be rigged not just on the
8:38 pm
field, but also in the halls of congress. it's time to get real refs on the field, and real competition on the economy. let's flalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
8:39 pm
8:40 pm
are they contagious? i don't think so. [ male announcer ] contract the rainbow! taste the rainbow!
8:41 pm
>> eliot: after four years we have yet to fully recover from the financial collapse of 2008. the billion dollars question remains should we have done better? that is one of the many questions that sheila bare discusses in her new pull-no-punches book "bull by the horns," writing and i quote . . .
8:42 pm
she joins me now. sheila thank you for coming in and writing this tell-all book that is fascinating. because you are the first person to talk about this from inside the room. and that's what makes it so different. >> it does. and i think given the fact there was so much taxpayer exposure is here that the public deserved to know what was going on. >> eliot: why do you think it happened -- it being this cataclysm that brought us all down? >> well it's a typically cycle, we were having a housing asset build, and people said well this is different this time. housing will be good forever. we'll make loose loans and they can always refinance. and then they were taking more leverage. so they were using other people's money to make these
8:43 pm
bets. there is the [ inaudible ] capital accord that was specifically allowed large financial institutions to take on more capital. and the fdic fought that tooth and nail -- >> eliot: you were throughout this cycle, it was leverage securitization playing with other people's money, bawl of the things -- you were one of the few voices even before it happened saying be careful this is dangerous. it is going to end ugly. and how were you dealt with then? >> not very well. >> eliot: you are being kind. >> this goes back to 2001 when i was the treasury we suggested to the fed -- we didn't even have mortgage lending standards, and they didn't want to use that authority. and then when i came back in
8:44 pm
2006 to head the fdic i couldn't believe what i was seeing. sub prime is contained. remember that. we have a problem here but it's a small sector of the overall mortgage market and banks don't have that much exposure and nobody was looking at all of the trains of the derivatives. >> eliot: because these guys are smart. >> yes. >> eliot: listen then you have the bailout. >> yeah. >> eliot: and you are saying what do we do? at least structure the bailouts in a way that creates some piece of the bargain for the public. that did not happen? >> yeah. >> eliot: why not? >> the original idea of tarp was to get the other bad assets off of the books. and -- but that's hard to do. that requires operational
8:45 pm
capacity and the ability to execute, and i think at the end of the day it was easier to write big checks to a lot of institutions. and a lot of this was being driven by citibank. >> eliot: you go through detail about how you think tim geithner was there protecting citibank and the rest of it was a camouflage. >> certainly the capitol injections. there was a liquidity problem. things were spinning out of control, and banks were having a hard time rolling new debt. there was a problem there. it was more with the investment banks than the commercial banks -- >> eliot: and they depend on day-to-day borrowing -- >> exactly. whereas commercial banks have deposits that are sticky because they are government guaranteed, so they are stable.
8:46 pm
citi relied heavily on wholesale markets -- >> eliot: let me jump to the issues that you focus on. they didn't do anything for the mortgage relief that was critical for the economy. >> no they didn't. we had some soft language theying they should do their best which they agreed to but didn't do that. >> at the moment tim geithner said i have what you need -- they didn't reform anything. why not? >> because they didn't really need capital. citi needed capital. the rest of them had liquidity needs, but they were afraid if they put too many conditions or restrictions the healthy banks wouldn't take it. so if you -- at chase or wells fargo, they still have pretty strong balance sheets
8:47 pm
and they are saying we are going to make you take this capital, and by the way you have to do x, and z. >> eliot: and then we didn't solve the financial crisis and that has continued to be a huge perhaps more fundamental drag on the economy. >> it has been. and they had more tarp money, so we thought after we did the capital infusions, that there would still be a significant amount of tarp money to do troubled asset relief for the mortgage -- that's what congress thought they were voting for. and we couldn't get the bush administration to move. so when the obama administration came in we thought we can do all of this. and then they did a very timid endorsement. >> eliot: we
8:48 pm
our conversation is with you the viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. >> eliot: the former chair of the fdic sheila bair is here and we're picking through the lasting damage from the crash of 2008, but first let's check in with jennifer grandholm. good evening governor what have you got for us tonight? >> thanks eliot, tonight we're going to focus on two crucial swing states. ohio progressive, is going to be my guest, and then colorado is another critical state in the election, and we're going to continue our conversation on
8:49 pm
clean energy jobs with colorado now to my point. (vo) jennifer granholm ... >>for every discouraged voter, there are ten angry ones taking action. trickle down does not work. in romney's world, cars get the elevator and the workers get the shaft. that is a whole bunch of bunk. the powerful may steal an election, but they can't steal democracy.
8:50 pm
then how'd i get this... [ voice of dennis ] safe driving bonus check? what is that? so weird, right? my agent, tom, said... [ voice of dennis ] ...only allstate sends you a bonus check for every six months you're accident-free... ...but i'm a woman. maybe it's a misprint. does it look like a misprint? ok. what i was trying... [ voice of dennis ] silence. ♪ ♪ ask an allstate agent about the safe driving bonus check. are you in good hands?
8:51 pm
septic disasters are disgusting and costly, but avoidable. the rid-x septic subscriber program helps prevent backups by sending you monthly doses right to your door so you will never forget to maintain your system. sign up at >> eliot: we're back with sheila bair former chair of the fdic
8:52 pm
and author of the new block-buster book. i want to spend a moment to name some individuals. john thian. >> no i was surprised he was even invited. >> eliot: there is the meeting where the fate of the universe was being discussed and he said is my pension going to be cut? >> yeah. >> eliot: shame on him. [ laughter ] >> eliot: tim geithner? >> tim was eager to be in the room with all of those folks. he had the job of telling them how much tarp money the government wanted him to take. >> eliot: he wants to be one of
8:53 pm
them way too much. >> i think he has matured, but at that point, yes, that was absolutely my impression. >> eliot: and the new york fed was the endtyity that controlled all of this. >> yeah we fought the new york fed on these two standards. we fought them tooth and nail on that. >> eliot: that's when people believed these were the masters -- >> yes. [overlapping speakers] >> eliot: jamie dimon you say nice things about. >> i do. at the fdic we had an opportunity to deal with business people too. and dimon's bank we had an auction, and they won the bid for wamu and the transition was seamless. there was no disruption of services to customers, and they just executed very well.
8:54 pm
and he had a strong balance sheet. he said this is crazy we're getting out of here -- >> eliot: they have had some hiccups since then. >> absolutely. but at that point he had seen it earlier -- >> eliot: we may not have time to discuss the too big to fail phenomenon, but jamie defends the notion that super banks can do everything. >> yeah and i don't agree with him on that. if you are doing the securities and derivatives and the foreign operations it is just very very difficult to manage at the top of the house. >> eliot: nobody is good enough to manage all of them. >> you really aren't. and he said it was stupid -- a $6 billion loss is not significant. >> eliot: the occ -- >> right. >> eliot: what is that? and how bad were they?
8:55 pm
>> it was bad -- they had the lead authority for regulating the largest banks. these are large banking organizations. and they had the responsibility -- and their job was to protect the fdic. they were terrible. it was like having a trade group at the table. >> eliot: you don't need to persuade me -- we litigated against them time and time again -- they did everything wrong, get rid of them. >> i think a lot of that was the leadership. you have some really fine examiners in the fcc. i'm really hoping they can restore it to its previous 20 years ago -- >> eliot: let's switch to the economy. [ inaudible ] three will it make a difference? >> no it scares me. there is very small benefit in terms of job creation or more
8:56 pm
lending. it pumps more liquidity into the system creates more inflation risk. you can see banks their foreign holdings increasing they can take the cheap money here and arbitrage it over seas -- >> eliot: i couldn't agree more. >> ebb aboutly. >> eliot: has wall street learned -- as the psychology of these masters of the universe changed since you first dealt with them? >> i don't think so. but i think the market has imposed discipline on them too. but at the end of the day, they got bailed out, their hands were slapped, we didn't get heavy with replacing them -- >> eliot: we have got to stop here. but i have time for one more
8:57 pm
question. >> sure. >> eliot: who should be treasury secretary? >> i don't know. i would like the bank regulations -- >> eliot: okay. i'm nominating sheila >> jennifer: i'm jennifer granholm and are you in war room. so ohio's the focal point of this presidential campaign. mitt romney does not like the polls he's seeing. so he's sending out his surrogates to recite that off the repeated campaign slogan, polls, schmolls. >> jennifer: the week has not been kind to mitt romney. new polls show the extent of the
8:58 pm
8:59 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on